In
compliance of your Lordship’s order, I checked annexure No. RA-5 and RA-6 on
the record of writ Petition No. 9672/88 Sheo Asrey Tewari & anothers Vs. I
Addl. District Judge & another in respect of plot no. 927 of village
Turkamanpur Tappa Kasba Pargana Haveli Sadar Gorkhpur of the year 1323 fasli
and 1295 fasli and found that conversation of the land from bigha to acres is
correct.

In
Khasra of village Turkmanpur(Collector’s record) of 1322 fasli, there are two
sets of plots, against Plot no. 927, one set consists of sub -plot no,881, 882,
883 and 888. Another set consists of sub plot no. 875-876-877 and 878. In
column no. 3 total area is written to be. 7.32 acre. But in Fard Mutabiqat
(Comparative table) of 1322 fasli(Lekhpsl’s record) of village Turkmanpur plot
no. 927 consists of sub-plots 881, 882,883,884,885, 875, 876, 877, 878 and 886.
Thus, there addition of plot nos. 884 ,885 after plot no. 888 and 886 after
plot no. 878 in Lekhpal’s record and both the records do not tally.

Against
the original entry of plot no. 878, figure ‘8’was added on left side to make it
read as ‘887’. Thereafter figure ‘8’ on the left side of original figure was
cut. This gives impression that it can be read as 878 and 887 both. At page 99,
there are cutting but no official has signed on such cutting.

As
directed by your Lordship, Urdu, Hindi and English transliteration of the
relevant records has been done, which is attached herewith for your Lordship’s
kind perusal.

The
petitioner No. 2 has filed an affidavit with eleven annexures, which with the
exception of one refer to the land records, otherwise in the possession of the
district administration i.e. the State. A copy of this affidavit has already
been delivered to counsel for the parties.

All
the Respondents have jointly and unanimously prayed and requested the court
that the matter be adjourned for today as they feel that the matter needs to be
discussed with the Collector and District Magistrate, Gorakhpur. The reason for
short adjournment was explained by learned counsel aforesaid. Regard being had
to the record as of date, including certified copies of land records filed
today, a short adjournment over the week-end was desired to obtain
instructions. It was further contended that in consultation with the Collector/
District Magistrate party Respondents would seek instructions to suggest a
proposal if another tract of land contiguous to that in the possession of petitioner,
as of date, can be made available, subject to such orders as may be passed by
this court, so that the interest of all parties can be protected. The request
for adjournment, to let the Collector and District Magistrate consider the
matter is not unreasonable. The matter is thus adjourned to be listed on August
18, 1989, as August 15 and 17 are public holidays.

After
the aforesaid order was passed and at the rising of the court, Mr. B.D.
Mandhyan, Advocate entered appearance to insist that the matter be taken up as
unlisted tomorrow. The Court requested learned counsel to be briefed by his
colleagues in this case on the proceedings as are on record, during his
absence, as the request for adjournment may ultimately see a solution and end
litigation. Learned counsel insisted that the District Magistrate Gorakhpur has
nothing to do with the matter and that he must have his say.

As
the matter cannot proceed beyond court hours in any case, place as unlisted
tomorrow so that Mr. B.D. Mandhyan, Advocate, may have his say on whatever he
contends. Let the record be before the court.